Thursday, February 23, 2006

Labor Support for Lieberman

There's a new article about Lieberman's labor support worth pointing out over at CT News Junkie:

Connecticut’s Democratic Party establishment flocked to U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman’s side today at a labor endorsement rally in Hartford. Their message, unsurprisingly, called for party unity and tried to paint primary challenger Ned Lamont as an outsider, though they never mentioned Lamont by name. Significant among Lieberman’s union endorsements: UNITE-HERE, a 7,000 member left-wing union with a solid reputation for doorknocking during elections.

“I have a different stance than Joe on the war,” said Robert Proto, President of UNITE-HERE Local 35 in New Haven. “It’s clear many of our folks don’t think the direction we’re taking [in Iraq] is right, especially because we have no concrete exit plan. But our culture is to endorse folks who have stood side by side with us.” (Levine)

Lieberman stood with UNITE-HERE during strikes at Yale, and it's paying off for him. Union members may disagree with his stance on the war, but apparently loyalty matters.

Can Lamont win without labor support?

Swan denied Lieberman’s event puts pressure on his campaign to come out with their own labor endorsements, because they haven't yet announced Lamont is running.

“We understood going in that many of the institutional players in the Democratic Party and organized labor will need to stick with Joe,” Swan said. (Levine)

Lieberman's trying to make sure Lamont's campaign is stillborn. Labor provides a ready-made field organization that Democrats have used for decades to get out the vote and spread their message.

Of course, even one union endorsement (the SEIU, for example) would legitimize Lamont's campaign and raise his chances. We'll see if he can pick one up.

25 comments:

proudunionmember
said...

Aside from money, which Lieberman obviously doesn't need, Labor endorsements only matter if there is some motivation on the part of the membership to work the campaign, or something in it for leadership to really push for an effort.

This race has neither. UNITE-HERE members aren't going to volunteer for Joe in August, and the Union leadership of UNITE-HERE has just done everything they intend to do for the junior senator.

The races for congress, especially the 5th, will be where the real union action is.

Union members getting out the vote for a August primary? Don't think so.

There is a world a difference between an August primary and a November election and agree with proudunionmember when he says that he doesn't see union members volenteering much of their time for a primary in August.

I absolutely love the arrogance of you Democrats. You have a Senator like Joe Lieberman: someone with extraordinary draw from both his own party and others, someone who has SKUNKED the competition in every race, and a man who five and a half years ago was the vice presidential nominee. You have a U.S. Senate with a GOP majority of only a handful. And yet, you are braxen enough to feel you can kick this man to the curb for his views on a single issue, with the concrete assumption that you will elect a yuppie prince from Greenwich in a walk--a man who (to use a phrase y'all often use of Republicans) has the luxury of means to hold and forward these "ultra-liberal" views as a U.S. Senate candidate with ZERO qualifications. I know that Dems have loved seeinf Republicans nominate candidates like Brook Johnson and Jack Orchulli and, as a Republican, I love seeing you guys do the exact same thing....with the exact same result. With each day, Connecticut Democrats gain the same feelings of inevitability and invicibility that Republicans on the federal level have. Dems feel that they can exploit it there, and Republicans will exploit it here. Go for it folks.

John Olsen, president of the state AFL-CIO, was more cautious in predicting whether his group would endorse Lieberman in a primary. Many in organized labor "are disappointed in the senator" over his position on the war, which means Lieberman will need to emphasize positions on issues such as education and healthcare that appeal to labor families, Olsen said.

Pardon me, Anon 8:49, I meant "brazen"--as I'm sure a smart cookie like you noticed the "X" is next to the "Z".

Explain to me why it is so sacreligious for a Democrat to agree with a Republican, or vice versa? Isn't compromise and cooperation a core principle of our Republic? And why wouldn't R's be favorable to Lieberman--he has cleared their consciences for six years since they voted for Phil Giordano...myself NOT included.

But again, keep at it for Neddy-boy. The only chance R's have is a three way race, so thanks for giving us that chance.

Has Lamont talked about anything other than the war and Democrats being upset with Joe Lieberman? On his website, there are no real concrete policy proposals or how to solve the problems that he sees. There's really nothing on his website, which makes his candidacy seem less valid. I too am frustrated with the similar things, but dont' have the money to launch my own campaign to run for Senator. I think he'd probably have better legs to stand on if his campaign did not appear to be based solely on anger and frustration. I think you get more done when you are for something rather than against something, particularly when it's a person.

When I saw Lamont at the Fairfield County DFA meeting about a month ago Lamont talked about the war, universal healthcare, energy conservation, etc. He has an excellent educational and professional background and has worked in government at the local level. His campaign hasn't officially launched yet so naturally his website isn't going to be 100 pages deep yet. He's not as one-dimensional as Joe is portraying him and as many are assuming. The war is the top issue of the campaign, there's no doubt about it. But there are plenty of other things to talk about too and Ned is talking about them.

PS: I'm not supporting him -- justing trying to set the record straight.

Of course Lieberman is going to get the support of Dem insiders and elected officials. They'd be fools not to stand with him. The real story is that Olsen left him hanging, as did Nappier. Joe can't even close the circle which means he's ripe for picking.As Iraq slips into civil war, and the Bush/Cheney/Lieberman war policy is even further exposed for the complete debacle that it is, Joe's hold on his seat becomes less secure.

In recent years, labor support has meant nada in terms of GOTV. Labor is not the dominating force it used to be, and hasn't shown any signs be effectively doing work for a campaign in many, many years. In many ways, the term "union organization" with regard to political campaigns has grown to be more of an oxymoron than anything else.

As to the "Dodd and Lieberman share 97% of their voting history," that's because it's history that is being tracked, not recent voting patterns. They've become more divergent in recent years. Also, comparing the two is like comparing apples to pears: they're related, and thrive in similar climates.

Lamont stands a fine chance of beating Lieberman, so long as the netroots people actually peel themselves away from their monitors and mousepads, and so long as the more shy and reserved people actually get out there and vote. Also, as many local-level Dem organizations are breaking away from the Lieberman lovefest, they can play a bigger role with GOTV efforts. In this case, being local - with real local ties - is the best thing to do.

Another reality for those thinking that union endorsement is going to help: an August primary will have very low turnout, as a whole. As such, outsiders tend to do well as long as they organize. There's still a lot of time left for things to change, and Lamont has a lot of shrewd advisers - Lieberman doesn't have a monopoly on smart campaign strategists.

Basically, the whole press junket with the unions is a sign that Lieberman is afraid. He's putting more effort into this race than he did in 2000, when he was basically unchallenged within the party and spent 90 percent of his time running for VP. He's afraid, which means that Lamont is a legitimate threat.

And let's face it: it would be hard - not impossible, but hard - for a Republican to win Lieberman's seat, even in a three-way race. So for Joe, he sees personal trouble with any Dem who has momentum - and momentum will beat Joementum every time. Lamont has gained at Lieberman's expense, and Lieberman has hurt his own credibility by being a Bush sympathizer. And it's not like the military-industrial areas are skewing any more Reublican these days, as Simmons is finally at risk of losing his strangely-acquired house seat.

hey rudi, think you should hit happy hour and order a tall glass of reality. i would hardly call being up in the polls 68-13 with the recent week of positve democratic base press a full on political panic.

Let's see, it's late Feb YET Lieberman is out there in front of the cameras with UNITE-HERE top Democratic brass and he isn't in panic mode.

It would be foolish for any Democratic politician to dump Joe so who cares about Nappier and Co, they have to play the game and that's how it's played. If anyone came out against Lieberman at this point in the game (again, it's Feb folks) they would be blacklisted so fast, it would make your head spin.

And for you poll numbers...you just keep the spinning going, I not even going to waste time debunking that garbage.

As for happy hour, the way your yapping, it sounds like you've been at the bar since lunch.

ctblogger, nothing about spin when citing actual poll results. among dems lieberman is leading lamont 68-13. those were the numbers. there will no doubt be other polls and tightening of the race but you show your inexperience when you refer to facts as spin. hope you had a couple rolling rocks to clear your head over the weekend...